Sources

The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts

Citation Formats

General Reference

Divinity Atlas. "The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts." Accessed August 30, 2026. https://dev-divinity.interactiveatlas.org/sources/the-babylonian-gilgamesh-epic-introduction-critical-edition-and-cuneiform-texts.

APA Style

Divinity Atlas. (n.d.). The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Retrieved August 30, 2026, from https://dev-divinity.interactiveatlas.org/sources/the-babylonian-gilgamesh-epic-introduction-critical-edition-and-cuneiform-texts

BibTeX

@misc{divinityatlas-the-babylonian-gilgamesh-epic-introducti,
  author = {Divinity Atlas},
  title = {The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://dev-divinity.interactiveatlas.org/sources/the-babylonian-gilgamesh-epic-introduction-critical-edition-and-cuneiform-texts},
  note = {Accessed August 30, 2026}
}

Andrew George's edition is the standard critical scholarly edition of the Gilgamesh epic, working directly from the cuneiform tablets themselves to set out the documented relationship between the earlier Sumerian poems, the Old Babylonian version and the standard version ascribed to Sin leqi unninni, rather than presenting one composite retelling as the single Gilgamesh text. That direct philological work across the actual textual layers, checkable against the cuneiform sources it publishes, is the edition's real evidentiary basis and the reason it stands as the standard reference. Use it for the documented textual history and content of the Gilgamesh epic across its versions; a claim about a broader Mesopotamian mythic cycle beyond Gilgamesh needs a source such as Dalley's translation of the wider corpus.

Facts

Assessment

Reliability Tier

Andrew George's standard scholarly critical edition of the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, setting out the relationship between the Sumerian poems, the Old Babylonian version and the standard version, published by Oxford University Press.

Notes

The standard critical edition, setting out the relationship between the Sumerian poems, the Old Babylonian version and the standard version ascribed to Sin-leqi-unninni.

Citation

Author

Andrew R. George

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Publication Year

2003

URL

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-babylonian-gilgamesh-epic-9780198149224

Source Type

Critical edition

Cross-Tradition Connections

Associated With

Babylonians

This source names Babylonians directly: "Andrew George's edition is the standard critical scholarly edition of the Gilgamesh epic, working directly from the cuneiform tablets themselves to set out the documented relationship between the..."

Source The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform TextsAndrew R. George

Gilgamesh

This source names Gilgamesh directly: "critical scholarly edition of the Gilgamesh epic, working directly from the cuneiform tablets themselves to set out the documented relationship between the earlier Sumerian poems, the Old Babylonian..."

Source The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform TextsAndrew R. George

Mesopotamians

This source names Mesopotamians directly: "Andrew George's edition is the standard critical scholarly edition of the Gilgamesh epic, working directly from the cuneiform tablets themselves to set out the documented relationship between the..."

Source The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform TextsAndrew R. George

Sumerians

This source names Sumerians directly: "Andrew George's edition is the standard critical scholarly edition of the Gilgamesh epic, working directly from the cuneiform tablets themselves to set out the documented relationship between the..."

Source The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform TextsAndrew R. George

Claims Backed By This Source (128 claims)

This source backs 128 claims across the atlas. As facts: 77 well-attested, 1 scholarly debate. As cited relationships: 26 holds, 1 held Differently. Plus 23 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.

Disposition By Topic

Myths & Sacred Narratives, 32 claims: 17 well-attested, 12 holds, 3 general references.
Scripture Portions, 28 claims: 16 well-attested, 7 holds, 5 general references.
Figures, 19 claims: 13 well-attested, 1 scholarly debate, 2 holds, 3 general references.
Articles, 12 claims: 12 well-attested.
Sources, 12 claims: 8 well-attested, 4 holds.
Other Writings, 11 claims: 9 well-attested, 2 general references.
Deities, 6 claims: 2 well-attested, 1 held Differently, 3 general references.
Languages, 2 claims: 1 holds, 1 general references.
Regions, 2 claims: 2 general references.
Artifacts & Relics, 1 claims: 1 general references.
Cities, 1 claims: 1 general references.
Cultures, 1 claims: 1 general references.
Sacred Sites, 1 claims: 1 general references.